[macintosh-hd]

So we do agree that at the time this video was recorded, the error message was at the bottom of the screen instead of at its current prominent location that cannot be covered.

(Your citation for the error message being placed in the more prominent location is from June 2024. Mouse over the "1 year ago" to see the date it was posted, June 27th 2024. This is after the video you reference, April 24th 2024.)

Only one error message can be displayed at a time at the bottom of the screen, and considering how frequently this specific individual has been dishonest, I would not put it past him to have removed the payment method to block the error message from being visible.

If your response to this is why does the message get blocked, I ask you what normal user would have paid $6,000 for FSD and not ever planned to use a supercharger? And if they were paying $99/mo for it as a subscription, there would have been a card to pay for superchargers. (Additionally, this error message doesn't appear until after the first time you supercharge, because that one will be allowed to start without payment attached as a courtesy.) This edge case is still one that should be fixed, and so it is good that it was.

I mean, the first video you posted just now doesn't even show the screen at the time of impact! At this point, either the guy is dishonest or stupid. And neither are trustworthy. It would be a better use of your time to defend people making videos to this effect not associated with The Dawn Project. They’re obviously not managing to convince Tesla, nor any relevant safety bodies that something needs to be done.

In any case, we are arguing over footage that is 14 months old. That version of FSD was and is never going to be used by unsupervised autonomous vehicles. I agree that their previous titling of the feature lacking “(Supervised)” was misleading, but it did still require full attention and constant confirmation of hands on the wheel.

[Veserv]

You have presented no evidence of dishonesty to justify your claim that "this specific individual has been dishonest". The only argument you have presented is asserting the person is dishonest, therefore they must have engaged in nefarious schemes to cover their dishonesty so there is no evidence, therefore they are dishonest.

Again, show me a single video where "Cruise control will no brake. Accelerator pedal is pressed" or similar message is clearly visible at any time. In fact, show me a single video where any claimed manipulation is clearly visible. And no, "You can not see the accelerator pedal in this video, therefore I imagine they must have their foot on it it since I assume that is the only way to get the demonstrated outcomes." is not a valid example.

That argument is even further double wrong because the Tesla promoters made up that claim so much the Dawn Project improved the camera angles to show the accelerator pedal so the Tesla promoters could not keep lying about it. And no, you can not argue that increased transparency to dismiss fabricated claims about non-visible elements is reverse time-travel proof of past nefariousness. By that logic, any increase in transparency or data reporting in any field is proof of fraud which is pants-on-head stupid.

So, show any video which clearly demonstrates any claimed manipulation in the video contents themselves which allows you to be so convinced that dishonesty must have occurred. That is how we got here, right? You saw a video which obviously and directly reveals dishonesty in a way that no reasonable person could ignore?

And besides, we are not arguing about videos over 14 months old. This thread is about a linked video demonstrating FSD currently runs down child mannequins. There is no warning message on the screen, the accelerator is clear visible and not pressed. If you claim the only reason it ran down child mannequins in earlier videos is because the accelerator is pressed and indicated by that imagined message, this video demonstrates those claims to be objectively false. Unless you are arguing that it used to only run down child mannequins when the accelerator pedal was pressed, but now it has "improved" and will do it unprompted.

[macintosh-hd]

You had a long back and forth with someone else in this post where you defended obvious dishonesty on the part of this group. They presented footage where FSD literally was not engaged in an ad showing its flaws, and it doesn’t matter if the driver signed paperwork or they had other footage where it allegedly was enabled and in total working order. Dan’s credibility was done when he didn’t backtrack and try again right there.

That is brazen dishonesty, and the fact that you will not admit that means you’re a waste of time. If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try to replicate the results so it can come from someone who has even a shred of trustworthiness.

[Veserv]

You mean the back and forth where I demonstrated that FSD was literally engaged during tests in that round of tests demonstrating it would hit child mannequins while FSD was engaged using the raw video footage of those tests where the "reporter" then admits, upon actually bothering to view the raw video footage, that FSD did hit child mannequins while it was engaged in those test runs. That same back and forth where they are clearly moving the goalposts upon realizing their initial position that FSD was never engaged in any of those tests was dead wrong.

I am amazed that your take-away was that it was "brazen dishonesty" on part of the people who produced the raw video footage supporting their claims instead of the "reporter" who jumped the gun without bothering to check their sources and was proven wrong.

Let me spell this out for you:

The claim was that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged. The video footage presented in the report, drawn from a single round of testing, shows FSD running down a child mannequin while it was engaged. There exists additional video footage showing FSD not engaged also running down a child mannequin. That is irrelevant to the claim, supported by video evidence, that FSD would run down a child mannequin while it was engaged.

Your claim only makes sense if there was no video footage of any test in that test run where FSD ran down a child mannequin while engaged. That is clearly and demonstrably untrue as seen by the raw footage of videos from that test run included in the report. The claim that, at the time, FSD would not run down a child mannequin at the time while engaged is clearly false. Anybody claiming otherwise is a brazen liar without even a shred of trustworthiness and propagating that lie is a whistleblower smear campaign.

To elaborate more specifically on the content of the advertisement. In this context where we see that there are tests that demonstrate the truth of the underlying claim, the only valid point of contention is whether the advertisement is a accurate representation of the tests being advertised. The video content of the advertisement is not materially different than the contents of the tests, which are the actual ground truth being used as evidence, therefore the advertisement is perfectly fine on all accounts.

Care to try again? Show me a single video where the claimed manipulations are clearly visible in such a way that resulted in you having no doubt that they were manipulated. Please try not to cite the same people who made that first false claim as they do not even have a shred of trustworthiness.